Topic: In desperate attempt Biden uses his last moment in office to try to change constitution by dictate.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #122,934
The country's division will only be greater if one side makes up their own constitution. It is supposed to be the law of the land, regardless of your politics. This is a sad day for America.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later[^] [v] #1,340,787
You know what? He’s an old guy. It’s not his last day on the job, that’s the 19th not the 17th, but I say, if you only live once, ya might as well try it!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,788
@previous (B)
This sets a precedent, and now Trump can create new amendments when he feels like it too.
This sets a precedent, and now Trump can create new amendments when he feels like it too.
Pharaoh Mora III !ZRFZNQdNDQ joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,791
Why do you oppose the Equal Rights Amendment?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 28 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,795
@1,340,788 (A)
I don’t plan to live in this country longer than two years. I lost faith in America long long ago. This doesn’t bother me.
(I am anon B I just clear my cookies because I’m a hungry American.)
I don’t plan to live in this country longer than two years. I lost faith in America long long ago. This doesn’t bother me.
(I am anon B I just clear my cookies because I’m a hungry American.)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,796
@1,340,791 (Pharaoh Mora III !ZRFZNQdNDQ)
I support following the constitution, and the constitution outlines how new amendments are to be added. It does not allow presidents to change the supreme law of the land on a whim, and we should appreciate that.
I support following the constitution, and the constitution outlines how new amendments are to be added. It does not allow presidents to change the supreme law of the land on a whim, and we should appreciate that.
Pharaoh Mora III !ZRFZNQdNDQ replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,797
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,798
@1,340,796 (A)
The constitution is just words. Nothing is forcing anyone to follow it, and if they stop following it, America is only 4% of the world population. People got on before it and they’ll get along after it’s gone. Law only exists if we all agree that it exists. But it’s impossible to keep people ideologically consistent for hundreds of years. Eventually things fall apart. At one point, the Catholic Church and the primacy of Rome was the foundation of western society, earlier, the worship of the Roman emperor as a God was the foundation. Now, democracy is the foundation. Will it be forever? Nope. That’s just how it be.
The constitution is just words. Nothing is forcing anyone to follow it, and if they stop following it, America is only 4% of the world population. People got on before it and they’ll get along after it’s gone. Law only exists if we all agree that it exists. But it’s impossible to keep people ideologically consistent for hundreds of years. Eventually things fall apart. At one point, the Catholic Church and the primacy of Rome was the foundation of western society, earlier, the worship of the Roman emperor as a God was the foundation. Now, democracy is the foundation. Will it be forever? Nope. That’s just how it be.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,799
@1,340,797 (Pharaoh Mora III !ZRFZNQdNDQ)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,800
There is no end of history. Every empire falls, and no empire is ever the last empire.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,801
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,802
@1,340,797 (Pharaoh Mora III !ZRFZNQdNDQ)
The civil rights act already protects equal rights, and you don't just skirt the constitutional process because you have good intentions.
The civil rights act already protects equal rights, and you don't just skirt the constitutional process because you have good intentions.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 4 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,803
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,804
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,805
@1,340,798 (D)
Everything breaks down when people stop following rules and break the agreed upon law.
Society can keep functioning even if everyone is dissatisfied with the law, but when they don't agree about what the law even is the result is instability.
Everything breaks down when people stop following rules and break the agreed upon law.
Society can keep functioning even if everyone is dissatisfied with the law, but when they don't agree about what the law even is the result is instability.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,806
@previous (A)
It’s cyclical. The end result of stability is instability and the end result of instability is stability. The Roman Empire was a stable authoritarian state commanded by the Roman emperor (even though there was a Senate, after Julius Caesar marched his army on Rome, it was definitely a dictatorship). During Pax Romana there was a 200 year period of Roman peace. Then there was the third century crisis when the Roman Empire had to debase its currency in order to pay its own soldiers, they had dozens of emperors killing each other for the throne in a short timespan, there was chaos. Europe converted to Christianity under Constantine, the Roman Empire fell apart, it descended into the dark ages. But Christianity was less authoritarian than worshipping a living human person who also runs your government as a God. Then things became more stable again eventually. There started to become an established aristocracy in Europe. Then, there was the Protestant reformation that upset the dominance of the Catholic Church and napoleonic wars that upset the rule of monarchs in Europe, caused loads of instability. Then things became stable again, you had some republics in Europe that were no longer absolute monarchies with some democracy, nice and stable, World War One. Then more democracies, World War Two, and now, we think this stable peace in Europe with capitalist democracies with no religion will last forever, and America will be good forever, but it’s like… really I’m just rambling. The point is you have to be crazy to think countries won’t fall apart and reform when it’s been happening constantly in cycles for thousands of years and entire societies have completely changed their ideological foundation several times over already. Democracy isn’t any more objectively correct or the objective end point of anything than anything else ever was.
It’s cyclical. The end result of stability is instability and the end result of instability is stability. The Roman Empire was a stable authoritarian state commanded by the Roman emperor (even though there was a Senate, after Julius Caesar marched his army on Rome, it was definitely a dictatorship). During Pax Romana there was a 200 year period of Roman peace. Then there was the third century crisis when the Roman Empire had to debase its currency in order to pay its own soldiers, they had dozens of emperors killing each other for the throne in a short timespan, there was chaos. Europe converted to Christianity under Constantine, the Roman Empire fell apart, it descended into the dark ages. But Christianity was less authoritarian than worshipping a living human person who also runs your government as a God. Then things became more stable again eventually. There started to become an established aristocracy in Europe. Then, there was the Protestant reformation that upset the dominance of the Catholic Church and napoleonic wars that upset the rule of monarchs in Europe, caused loads of instability. Then things became stable again, you had some republics in Europe that were no longer absolute monarchies with some democracy, nice and stable, World War One. Then more democracies, World War Two, and now, we think this stable peace in Europe with capitalist democracies with no religion will last forever, and America will be good forever, but it’s like… really I’m just rambling. The point is you have to be crazy to think countries won’t fall apart and reform when it’s been happening constantly in cycles for thousands of years and entire societies have completely changed their ideological foundation several times over already. Democracy isn’t any more objectively correct or the objective end point of anything than anything else ever was.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,811
@1,340,805 (A)
While we're at it ratifying old as fuck constitutional amendments, maybe one additional state could ratify the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, and give THE PEOPLE more representation
While we're at it ratifying old as fuck constitutional amendments, maybe one additional state could ratify the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, and give THE PEOPLE more representation
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,813
@1,340,803 (D)
I just feel like there's two opposite messages there. History hasn't ended, it's on repeat
I just feel like there's two opposite messages there. History hasn't ended, it's on repeat
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,814
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,815
@previous (D)
But isn't that like secretly thinking it ended? Like the movie isn't over! We can just watch it again!
But isn't that like secretly thinking it ended? Like the movie isn't over! We can just watch it again!
Meta joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,817
And people thought Trump was nuts for wanting to purchase Greenland!
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 5 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,818
@1,340,815 (F)
> But isn't that like secretly thinking it ended? Like the movie isn't over! We can just watch it again!
Not really. Days end but days don’t end. It’s not a contradiction it’s just a concept language doesn’t capture. There’s a difference between a day ending and the end of the collection of all days. Same thing with history.
> But isn't that like secretly thinking it ended? Like the movie isn't over! We can just watch it again!
Not really. Days end but days don’t end. It’s not a contradiction it’s just a concept language doesn’t capture. There’s a difference between a day ending and the end of the collection of all days. Same thing with history.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,819
@1,340,815 (F)
@previous (D)
I made a room for you two: https://minichan.net/topic/122937
This is a topic about the US constitution
@previous (D)
I made a room for you two: https://minichan.net/topic/122937
This is a topic about the US constitution
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 13 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,820
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,824
@1,340,818 (D)
I see what you mean I think, interestingly this misunderstanding can also be made when people say history ended. There's all kinds of ways this can be understood.
I see what you mean I think, interestingly this misunderstanding can also be made when people say history ended. There's all kinds of ways this can be understood.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,825
@previous (F)
Somebody could say the history of the Soviet Union ended but the end of the Soviet Union was not the end of history. The history of the United States of America is not the history of the world. From the hypothetical perspective of somebody who exists at the hypothetical end of time, the history of America will be shorter than the history of the world and will not intersect with the beginning or the end of the world.
Somebody could say the history of the Soviet Union ended but the end of the Soviet Union was not the end of history. The history of the United States of America is not the history of the world. From the hypothetical perspective of somebody who exists at the hypothetical end of time, the history of America will be shorter than the history of the world and will not intersect with the beginning or the end of the world.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,826
@previous (D)
Then if you want to get real technical, history of the world is not the history of the universe. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, but the Big Bang was 13.8 billion years ago. Which means the universe existed longer without the sun than it has with the sun, and consequently it will also exist for longer after our sun is dead than it has with our sun alive.
Then if you want to get real technical, history of the world is not the history of the universe. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, but the Big Bang was 13.8 billion years ago. Which means the universe existed longer without the sun than it has with the sun, and consequently it will also exist for longer after our sun is dead than it has with our sun alive.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,827
@previous (D)
The same thing for our galaxy. 5 billion years from now, there won’t be a Milky Way galaxy because it’s going to collide with another glaxay.
The same thing for our galaxy. 5 billion years from now, there won’t be a Milky Way galaxy because it’s going to collide with another glaxay.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,829
Hidin' Biden
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,830
But interestingly enough, one could perhaps say the end of the Soviet union was the end of history, with the exact opposite meaning that most people would assume, in the sense that what is happening now is a new chapter.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,831
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,832
@1,340,817 (Meta)
Trying to take Canada and Greenland should squash any accusation the Republicans don't believe in climate change, the northern pass is key to the strategy.
Trying to take Canada and Greenland should squash any accusation the Republicans don't believe in climate change, the northern pass is key to the strategy.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,833
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,837
@previous (D)
China isn't cutting off their largest trading partners so they can start a war over Taiwan. Those fabs are rigged to blow anyway, it would be pointless.
China isn't cutting off their largest trading partners so they can start a war over Taiwan. Those fabs are rigged to blow anyway, it would be pointless.
Pharaoh Mora III !ZRFZNQdNDQ replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,839
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,840
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 41 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,842
@1,340,832 (A)I mean Greenland would be cool to have but it's a want not a need. A luxury.
We already have a broad swath of the Arctic Circle and the Northwest Passage.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,340,845
@previous (Meta)
Independent/Danish Greenland means adversaries can use that route. Control over the northern passage and the panama canal at the same time would give the US a monopoly over trade in the Western hemisphere.
Independent/Danish Greenland means adversaries can use that route. Control over the northern passage and the panama canal at the same time would give the US a monopoly over trade in the Western hemisphere.